Opinion
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)
The United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Stephen M. McNamee, J., revoked supervised release of defendant who had pleaded guilty to re-entry after deportation. Defendant appealed. The Court of Appeals held that district court could impose consecutive, rather than concurrent, sentence following revocation of defendant's supervised release.
Affirmed.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Stephen M. McNamee, District Judge, Presiding.
Before KLEINFELD, McKEOWN and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Jose Rivera-Martinez appeals from the district court's revocation of his supervised release, and its imposition of a consecutive rather than concurrent sentence. Rivera-Martinez's underlying conviction by guilty plea is for reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Rivera-Martinez's attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967) and has moved to withdraw on the ground that there are no viable issues on appeal.
The district court did not err in imposing a consecutive, rather than a concurrent, sentence. United States v. Steffen,
Page 812.
251 F.3d 1273, 1277-79 (9th Cir.2001). Because our independent review of the record discloses no further arguable issues, counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED and the judgment is
AFFIRMED.